The South Australian Employment Tribunal has rejected a bid by Aldi to dismiss a workers’ compensation claim brought by the mother of a worker who took her own life. The workplace suicide came after a customer had spit in the worker’s mouth. Aldi argued that the employee’s tragic death created an “incurable loss of evidence” that made a fair trial impossible. However, the tribunal threw out the application and ordered Aldi to pay the legal costs of the worker’s mother.
In this article, we look at the events of this workplace suicide compensation dispute Rita Sargeant as administrator of the estate of Emily Caridi deceased v Return to Work Corporation of South Australia and Aldi Stores [2026].
Emily Caridi worked at an Aldi store in South Australia. On 14 July 2023, she and the store manager intercepted a suspected shoplifter inside the premises. During the ensuing confrontation, the suspect spat directly into Ms. Caridi’s mouth. Following the assault, Ms. Caridi took a brief period of leave before returning to her duties on 17 July 2023. The physical assault triggered Ms. Caridi’s profound anxiety regarding potential disease transmission. It was not until three months later that medical experts were able to conclusively rule out any disease transmission.
Tensions rapidly developed between Ms. Caridi and store management regarding Aldi’s handling of the incident. The South Australian Employment Tribunal detailed how Ms. Caridi and her mother, Rita Sargeant, alleged that Aldi’s response to the traumatic incident was “inappropriate and inadequate.” They argued that the supermarket giant had sought to “downplay” the severity of the assault. They claimed that management failed to contact the police, file an official report or take photographic evidence of the scene.
According to tribunal records, the store manager allegedly questioned the necessity of an official investigation. They asked Ms. Caridi what making a police report would achieve. Furthermore, when Ms. Caridi compiled her written statement of the event, the store manager allegedly instructed her to “Get it as close to mine as you can.”
A secondary conflict emerged regarding access to the store’s CCTV footage of the assault. Ms. Caridi said that Aldi’s process to see the footage was “protracted and somewhat confusing.” Ms. Caridi and her mother highlighted that the former was “ruminating about the spitting incident.” They claimed that the delay in allowing her to view the CCTV footage was “psychologically damaging” to her. Ms. Caridi also complained that Aldi had “taunted” her by delaying access to the footage. On a scheduled day off, Ms. Caridi attended the store specifically to inspect the video recording. However, a colleague informed her that the store manager had stated he had no intention of showing Ms. Caridi the CCTV footage despite saying that he would.
On 5 August 2023, an area manager spoke with Ms. Caridi via telephone, later reporting that she sounded “hysterical” before arriving at the store. On or around 8 August 2023, Ms. Caridi was hospitalised following a severe nervous breakdown. Two months later, on 6 October 2023, Aldi terminated her employment. Five months after the initial spitting incident, on 30 December 2023, Ms. Caridi died by workplace suicide. Prior to her death, Ms. Caridi had commenced legal action to dispute the rejection of her statutory workers’ compensation claim for a psychiatric injury and medical expenses. Following her passing, her mother, Rita Sargeant, assumed administration of the estate to maintain the mental injury action and lodged a secondary claim for work-related death benefits.
Aldi responded to the estate’s claims by filing an interlocutory application under section 41 of the South Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014. The company sought a summary dismissal to strike out the workplace suicide compensation case without a trial. This was based on the following arguments:
Aldi also claimed that Ms. Caridi had intentionally withheld details of her paranoia from her treating psychiatrist. The company argued that this caused an “incurable loss of evidence” that also made a favourable judgement possible. Aldi claimed that Ms. Caridi’s brother had provided an affidavit that supported its belief that Ms. Caridi became paranoid before her death.
The company also rejected Ms. Caridi’s claims that its staff had made “pestering” phone calls to her after the incident. Aldi claimed that the phone calls were a proper part of ensuring and monitoring her well-being. The employer maintained that Ms. Caridi’s underlying delusional paranoia, rather than her employment conditions, was the true cause of her psychiatric condition that led to her workplace suicide.
Aldi asserted that its “proactive approach” in making a dismissal application was a “proper” measure intended to “save time and expense.” The company argued to the South Australian Employment Tribunal that because Ms. Caridi had passed away and could not be cross-examined, allowing her estate to keep pushing the workplace suicide compensation claim was inherently unfair and an “abuse of process.”
The summary dismissal application was heavily opposed by both Ms. Sargeant and the statutory compensating authority, the Return to Work Corporation of South Australia. The Corporation argued that the unavailability of a witness does not make a trial inherently unfair. It also noted that the rules of evidence routinely allow secondary records and investigator interviews to be tendered when a witness passes away.
On 17 April 2025, the Corporation sent an explicit warning letter to Aldi’s solicitors. This advised them that the summary dismissal attempt completely lacked merit. It urged the company to accept the workplace suicide injury claim and gave notice that Aldi would face severe cost penalties if it persisted with the summary dismissal attempt.
The South Australian Employment Tribunal considered Aldi’s summary dismissal application in August 2025. It dismissed the application for the following reasons:
Following this legal defeat, Aldi abandoned its defence and entered into consent orders in September 2025. The retail giant agreed to pay backdated weekly compensation payments from the exact date of Ms. Caridi’s “incapacity” up until her death. The outstanding issue of legal costs was determined in a subsequent judgment in March 2026.
The South Australian Employment Tribunal found that Aldi had acted unreasonably under section 106(3)(a) of the Return to Work Act 2014. This was because the company had pressed ahead with the groundless dismissal application after receiving the Corporation’s clear warning letter. As a result, the tribunal hit Aldi with an adverse costs order, forcing the retailer to pay 85% of the applicant’s legal costs on the Higher Courts scale.
To be recognised as a compensable psychiatric injury under Australian workplace law, a worker’s condition must escalate beyond ordinary stress or sadness into a diagnosed mental illness. Common examples include major depressive disorder, generalised anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). These conditions must be clinically verified by a qualified medical professional. Furthermore, the employment must be proven to be a significant contributing factor to the injury’s development.
The boundaries of what constitutes a compensable injury were central in Rita Sargeant v Aldi Stores [2026]. Following a traumatic in-store incident where a customer spat in her mouth, an employee suffered a psychological injury, culminating in her suicide. The South Australian Employment Tribunal rejected Aldi’s attempt to dismiss the claim summarily. The company had argued that the worker’s “delusional paranoia” may have been the cause of the mental injury rather than her job at Aldi.
Yes, an employer can be held liable for a psychiatric injury. To establish a claim, a worker must obtain a clinical diagnosis and prove that their employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury. Under Australian law, the “eggshell skull” principle applies to pre-existing vulnerabilities. This means an employer must take a worker as they find them. If workplace stressors like chronic overwork, bullying or poorly managed trauma worsen an underlying condition, liability is still established.
In Sargeant v Aldi Stores [2026], a supermarket employee was physically assaulted when a suspected shoplifter spat directly into her mouth. This triggered a psychological injury that led to the worker’s suicide. The tribunal threw out Aldi’s application to have the case struck out. Following this decisive procedural defeat, Aldi abandoned its defence and voluntarily entered into consent orders outside of court. The company agreed to pay backdated compensation for the worker’s period of incapacity. The tribunal also ordered Aldi to pay 85% of the applicant’s legal costs.
Read more: ‘Inappropriate’ Response to Workplace Bullying Led to Suicide
We at Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives assist workers across Australia with unfair dismissal, general protections, workplace bullying, discrimination and sexual harassment claims. We understand how overwhelming it can feel when your job, income or reputation is suddenly put at risk.
Our experienced team can help you understand your workplace rights, assess your options and guide you through the Fair Work process. Whether you’ve been forced to resign, unfairly disciplined, made redundant or treated unlawfully at work, we are here to help you get justice.
Strict deadlines apply to many Fair Work claims, including the 21-day time limit for unfair dismissal applications. Contact us now on 1800 333 666 for your free and private initial consultation.
